CITY OF SAN MARCOS
Judge dismisses Paxton’s marijuana lawsuit, state to appeal
The lawsuit, city of San Marcos vs. the State of Texas, has been adjudicated in the city’s favor, but an appeal is on the way. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit against the city of San Marcos, along with the cities of Austin, San Marcos, Killeen, Elgin and Denton, as well as San Marcos Mayor Jane Hughson, San Marcos Police Chief Stan Standridge, San Marcos City Manager Stephanie Reyes and each of the San Marcos City Council Members, regarding the city’s policy decriminalizing the possession of under four ounces of marijuana.
On July 22, 453rd Judicial District Judge Sherri Tibbe agreed with the city’s argument that the ordinance did not actually violate state law. The judge filed an order Granting Plea to the Jurisdiction, which effectively dismissed the case “with prejudice to refiling.” According to the Freeman Law website, a Plea to the Jurisdiction “challenges a trial court’s authority to hear a case by alleging that the factual allegations in the plaintiff’s pleadings, when taken as true, fail to invoke the trial court’s jurisdiction.” Dismissing a case with prejudice means that the same claim cannot be filed in that court, according to the Cornell Law School website.
The city of San Marcos gave insight into the background of the suit.
“In November 2022, a majority of San Marcos voters approved a citizen- initiated ordinance limiting enforcement of low-level marijuana offenses,” the city of San Marcos stated. “The State of Texas sued the City in Hays County District Court, asserting that the ordinance was in violation of State law. The City sought dismissal of the State’s lawsuit, arguing that the ordinance did not conflict with State law. Earlier this month a hearing was held on the State’s request to enjoin the City’s enforcement of the ordinance and on the City’s request for dismissal. On July 22, 2024, Judge Sherri K. Tibbe signed orders granting the City’s request for dismissal and denying the State’s request for a temporary injunction. On July 24, 2024, the State filed a notice of appeal, so the matter is not yet finally concluded.”
The city of San Marcos’ Plea to the Jurisdiction stated that “the State asserts that a voter-enacted Ordinance and corresponding police chief memorandum violate Section 370.003 of the Texas Local Government Code.This statute states: The governing body of a municipality, the commissioners court of a county, or a sheriff, municipal police department, municipal attorney, county attorney, district attorney, or criminal district attorney may not adopt a policy under which the entity will not fully enforce laws relating to drugs, including Chapters 481 and 483, Health and Safety Code, and federal law. … But because neither the governing body of the City [of San Marcos] nor its police department have adopted a policy not to fully enforce drug laws, Section 370.003 has not been violated and the City and its Officials are immune from suit.”
The Brief in Opposition to Temporary Injunction of Amicus Curiae Mano Amiga and Ground Game Texas stated that “Mano Amiga and Ground Game Texas are nonprofit organizations that together led a citizen initiative petition campaign to adopt the marijuana enforcement policy challenged by the State of Texas in this action.” Mano Amiga, along with Ground Game Texas, collected over 11,000 signatures from San Marcos residents in support of the ballot proposition on the November 8, 2022, general election ballot. The measure passed with 82% of San Marcos voters’ approval. The document asked the court to “take notice” of the argument made by the city of Austin in a related case in a Travis County District Court in which the court granted a Plea to the Jurisdiction against the state.
“On June 11, 2024, the Travis County District Court, Judge Jan Soifer, presiding, denied the State of Texas’ motion for temporary injunction and granted the City of Austin’s plea to the jurisdiction in a nearly identical case,” the brief stated. “Judge Soifer’s order followed a full hearing in that case, during which the City of Austin presented persuasive evidence showing that marijuana enforcement programs have become much more expensive for Texas cities following the Texas Legislature’s decision in 2019 to legalize low-potency cannabis, also known as ‘hemp.’” Catina Voellinger, Ground Game Texas executive director, said the dismissal of the suit reaffirms what was already apparent in Paxton’s suit against the city of Austin.
“Judge Tibbe rightly recognized Paxton has no legal basis for interfering with the will of local voters or municipal governments,” Voellinger said. “Texans are tired of scarce resources being devoted to marijuana criminalization instead of needed public services. Today's decision is a welcome reminder that this is a winning movement, and one we look forward to continuing to build across the state with the collaboration of local partners like Mano Amiga.”
The Daily Record reached out to the Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton but have not received a response as of time of press.
